• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

Wondering why I wasn’t mentioned earlier, but whatever.

Agnaa said:
Why do you and Kachon actively not want calcs evaluated? The only reason given in one of those posts (if Speedster asks it'll get rejected) makes zero sense.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for Majinere, but in my specific situation, it’s increasingly aggravating to have people not only stalk my page waiting for me to post a calc, but spam my wall asking for updates when I made it clear that I was completely offline for a couple of days due to IRL stuff. To add on, I specifically asked Speedster not to distribute my calc to CGMs and he went on and did it anyways, and when I expressed why I was annoyed, he just linked some website titled ”Benefits of Not Giving Up” not showing any sign of remorse.

I don’t care if it becomes a rule to not distribute calcs without the permission of the owner, but I believe that at the very least, Speedster should have a formal warning, if not more, as it seems that he’s continued to do the same things over and over and doesn’t even know that what he’s doing is bad.

just my two cents.
 
The only thing there I could see maybe deserving a warning is spamming your wall asking for updates, but I can't see any examples of that on your profile here, or on the wiki.

The other stuff may aggravate you, but I don't think that's really the staff's business since it's not an actual rule violation.

If you decided one day that you didn't want people to make matches for character pages you made without asking you first, started warning people about it, and got annoyed when they didn't listen, I wouldn't find that anything deserving of a formal warning.
 
If it help I won’t get calc evaluated without permission. Also I was going trough a stage Kachon I was just trying to motivate you not the most effective way so I apologize.
Kachon123 said:
Wondering why I wasn’t mentioned earlier, but whatever.


I can’t speak for Majinere, but in my specific situation, it’s increasingly aggravating to have people not only stalk my page waiting for me to post a calc, but spam my wall asking for updates when I made it clear that I was completely offline for a couple of days due to IRL stuff. To add on, I specifically asked Speedster not to distribute my calc to CGMs and he went on and did it anyways, and when I expressed why I was annoyed, he just linked some website titled ”Benefits of Not Giving Up” not showing any sign of remorse.

I don’t care if it becomes a rule to not distribute calcs without the permission of the owner, but I believe that at the very least, Speedster should have a formal warning, if not more, as it seems that he’s continued to do the same things over and over and doesn’t even know that what he’s doing is bad.

just my two cents.
Click to expand...
 
Agnaa said:
If you decided one day that you didn't want people to make matches for character pages you made without asking you first, started warning people about it, and got annoyed when they didn't listen, I wouldn't find that anything deserving of a formal warning.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can compare a page that is created for the public's eye that even you could get locked out of and a blog that only you and a few others can edit as the same thing in the slightest
 
KingTempest said:
I don't think you can compare a page that is created for the public's eye that even you could get locked out of and a blog that only you and a few others can edit as the same thing in the slightest
Click to expand...
If we did implement such a rule, would you be okay with people copying the entirety of that calc blog, reposting it on their own blog (while giving credit), and asking for that to be evaluated?

Since we already allow that, and have for years allowed that, for calcs done off-site or in threads.
 
KingTempest said:
That's just blatant plagiarism
Click to expand...
It's blatantly not if credit's given.

And as said, it's something we allow. I'm pretty sure I've seen someone do it in the past month.

On top of that, all content on the wiki goes under the CC-BY-SA license, which allows complete redistribution by anyone as long as credit is given. It seems a bit wack to clamp down on that, but only for other wiki members.
 
Agnaa said:
It's blatantly not if credit's given.

And as said, it's something we allow. I'm pretty sure I've seen someone do it in the past month.

On top of that, all content on the wiki goes under the CC-BY-SA license, which allows complete redistribution by anyone as long as credit is given. It seems a bit wack to clamp down on that, but only for other wiki members.
Click to expand...
Am I really the only one that sees just how horrendous this is? Like no, KT is absolutely correct on this. How can you put out something like this and be like "yeah no, this isn't an issue at all."
 
KingTempest said:
That's so shitty

"You can't ask for spam evals of my stuff, but you can copy it, put it under your name instead, then ask for it under your name instead of mine, and you're in your rights to do so"

I'm confused on why that's not a clear issue
Click to expand...
Because it removes your only potential issue with it.

Which is that if there's comments rejecting it, then other CGMs may not evaluate it in the future.

Which I'll again stress, is false! We don't just look at calcs once, and then decide to ignore it forevermore. But if you think that we do, then the evaluation happening on another blog gets rid of that issue.
 
Agnaa said:
Which is that if there's comments rejecting it, then other CGMs may not evaluate it in the future.

Which I'll again stress, is false! We don't just look at calcs once, and then decide to ignore it forevermore. But if you think that we do, then the evaluation happening on another blog gets rid of that issue.
Click to expand...
You do realize that it's a VERY inconvenient situation to be in after the calc is rejected once. The ones who made the calc may have to go on a wild goose chase to catch the attention of that one calc member who evaluated the calc to evaluate it a second and if unlucky, a third time and it may take days or even weeks.

Point is, precious time is gonna be used up for the ones who made the calc just BUMPING the message walls and dms of calc group members that the calc group members may receive extra notifications that filled up that bar of theirs that they can't see other notifications of other threads where there were other relevant things. This would've been avoided if no one had decided to jump the gun.
 
This discussion regarding calcs and not being reevaluated is derailing the situation with the report as this could been addressed in private, message wall, or at the very least, on a separate thread.

Feel free to delete this comment though, but that is all regarding calc and how long it takes to get evaluated again with irl priorities does seem off putting.

Also, giving credit to the original person is still valid although it can also been with permission too
 
Last edited:
Greatsage13th said:
You do realize that it's a VERY inconvenient situation to be in after the calc is rejected once. The ones who made the calc may have to go on a wild goose chase to catch the attention of that one calc member who evaluated the calc to evaluate it a second and if unlucky, a third time and it may take days or even weeks.

Point is, precious time is gonna be used up for the ones who made the calc just BUMPING the message walls and dms of calc group members that the calc group members may receive extra notifications that filled up that bar of theirs that they can't see other notifications of other threads where there were other relevant things. This would've been avoided if no one had decided to jump the gun.
Click to expand...
You are blowing this way out of proportion.

For one thing, all that stuff about chasing down calc group members, is something you'd need to do if the calc hadn't been evaluated early. Bringing it up is pointless, since it's no more of a timesink for you than the counterfactual.

For another thing, the amount of times where this happens is so rarely, that the extra calc group member time is not even worth talking about. Why do we need a new rule to give CGMs 0.1% fewer notifications?

If you really want to cut down on CGMs workloads, I can think of many ways that would be way more impactful than this. Banning all priority 4 calcs. Not allowing users to create calcs until they've demonstrated they can do so well; a process they can attempt once a month, and requires creating a calc with no issues 3 times in a row.

And lastly, you're ignoring the extra inconvenience this would create. Needing to ask people so that calcs can be evaluated. Needing to recalculate things, despite a perfectly good calc existing, if someone refuses to let it be evaluated. Needing to deal with reports over people violating that rule. Requiring CGMs to wait for a calc to be requested for evaluation before looking at it. I don't think these are big issues, but you're painting a misleading picture by only including the minor inconveniences for one side.
 
Greatsage13th said:
Hold on Hold on. What's a priority 4 calc?
Click to expand...
A calc that doesn't change the rating of any character in a verse. Below uncontroversial, already accepted values.
Majinere566 said:
This shit ain't supposed to be this difficult, if it ain't your calc please don't start throwing it around for it to be evaluated like it is.

This whole back and forth is really not necessary
Click to expand...
It's a collaborative site. Don't laud your creatorship over something as if it gives you exclusive rights to do anything with it.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
If you wanna emphasize the collaborative nature of the site then go ahead and unlock every page right now
Click to expand...
There is a difference between pages that can and will be vandalized given the chance and a calc/blog that only the creator can edit.

Other than that pages, just like blogs and calcs, can be copied and presented anywhere else by anyone willing to. IIRC other sites copied shit from here too and they just said "yeah credits to vs battles for x thing" like bruh its not the same
 
Tony_di_bugalu said:
There is a difference between pages that can and will be vandalized given the chance and a calc/blog that only the creator can edit.

Other than that pages, just like blogs and calcs, can be copied and presented anywhere else by anyone willing to. IIRC other sites copied shit from here too and they just said "yeah credits to vs battles for x thing" like bruh its not the same
Click to expand...
So what I'm hearing is that it's not actually collaborative, and thus defending this sorta thing with the "it's a collaborative site" excuse is ridiculous...

You don't get to go picking and choosing. It's either collaborative or it's not. Copying and pasting someone's blog just because you're too impatient shouldn't be endorsed
 
CloverDragon03 said:
If you wanna emphasize the collaborative nature of the site then go ahead and unlock every page right now
Click to expand...
Maybe I don't understand, but this seems to miss the point on every level?

All users are allowed to suggest changes for all pages on the site. Even very important pages, such as rules, have been unlocked for hours for users to implement changes. So yeah, it is quite collaborative.

Obviously we both believe something in-between the extremes of "unlock all pages" and "require permission from the page's original creator for everything related to it".

The substance of my argument is that there's very little of an actual issue caused by letting people request evaluations for calcs others created. While allowing edits on all pages increases risks of vandalism to unsustainable levels, which hurts collaboration. And that in our past, we have a ton of examples of not acting in that way. Restoring calc blogs that people deleted, refusing to delete pages just because the creator wanted them deleted when there weren't actual issues with them. Since they're used by other people, not just the creator.
 
Or maybe, just maybe...

You could just be patient so as to not potentially screw up the plans someone has for the verse in question.

Say I make a calc to upgrade a verse. The result's much higher than what the verse is currently at, but that's fine, because I have a few more calcs I'm making that show that the verse is consistently at this level.

If someone were to jump the gun and make a revision from this one calc, you know what would happen? It'd get dismissed as an outlier and the thread would be promptly shut down, and since that kind of thread has already been rejected, it'd be less likely for a thread I make later showing consistency in this rating to be accepted, solely on the principle of "this has been rejected before."
 
CloverDragon03 said:
Say I make a calc to upgrade a verse. The result's much higher than what the verse is currently at, but that's fine, because I have a few more calcs I'm making that show that the verse is consistently at this level.

If someone were to jump the gun and make a revision from this one calc, you know what would happen? It'd get dismissed as an outlier and the thread would be promptly shut down, and since that kind of thread has already been rejected, it'd be less likely for a thread I make later showing consistency in this rating to be accepted, solely on the principle of "this has been rejected before."
Click to expand...
That shouldn't happen. Threads should only get closed if they've been rejected before if no new evidence is brought up. The evaluators would have to be blind to not see that there's multiple more calcs the next time around. And I have personally seen verses where there were explicit rules against ever upgrading them get upgraded because just one or two new arguments were presented.

In most cases like this, I've seen people pop into the premature CRT, say "There's more arguments coming", and then have the later properly formed CRT go through.

Have more faith in people, man. We don't need, now, two new rules (no asking for calc evals without permission, no creating CRTs without permission) under the assumption that staff members can't tell when new arguments are being made.

EDIT: Meh, I probably should have left this all at just "That's not a rule violation, if people want to make it one, create a thread about it. No talking about it here." I'll try to do something like that next time.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
That shouldn't happen. Threads should only get closed if they've been rejected before if no new evidence is brought up. The evaluators would have to be blind to not see that there's multiple more calcs the next time around. And I have personally seen verses where there were explicit rules against ever upgrading them get upgraded because just one or two new arguments were presented.

In most cases like this, I've seen people pop into the premature CRT, say "There's more arguments coming", and then have the later properly formed CRT go through.

Have more faith in people, man. We don't need, now, two new rules (no asking for calc evals without permission, no creating CRTs without permission) under the assumption that staff members can't tell when new arguments are being made.
Click to expand...
Well you'll have to forgive me for being somewhat cynical after seeing what happens sometimes. You're right: This shouldn't happen. But dammit people find a way.
 
Given that this is rapidly evolving into an ongoing broad discussion regarding site policy, I will remind people that normal users should only comment if they are directly relevant to the situation, which currently includes exactly zero people.

For the record: my thoughts largely mirror Agnaa's. I don't think it's a big deal if someone wants to ask for evaluations for your calc, but spam is a separate matter.
 
I'm having issues on a thread talking with the person who made it, they make it impossible to communicate since they essentially use slight troll logic but w/o being one, and w/o having broken any rule since we allow this. Can I get some support, or witnesses if I need to close the thread if it remains like that?
 
Eficiente said:
I'm having issues on a thread talking with the person who made it, they make it impossible to communicate since they essentially use slight troll logic but w/o being one, and w/o having broken any rule since we allow this. Can I get some support, or witnesses if I need to close the thread if it remains like that?
Click to expand...
He simply is clueless about our standards. There's nothing troll-y about it.

I have commented on the thread proper, directing him to some of our standards pages. That's the only thing needed to be done here.
 
Well, there is more to it rather than being just that, so some more help is still appreciated. I will just continue in the thread itself.
 
Eficiente said:
I'm having issues on a thread talking with the person who made it, they make it impossible to communicate since they essentially use slight troll logic but w/o being one, and w/o having broken any rule since we allow this. Can I get some support, or witnesses if I need to close the thread if it remains like that?
Click to expand...
Also, I don't personally see anything report worthy going on there, but pinging a few staff members for more input sounds like a better method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
9 10 11
Replies
419
Views
27K
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
1K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top